[Skip to content]

Sign up for our daily newsletter
The Actuary The magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries

Determination report for adjudication panel

On 30 November 2009 the Adjudication Panel considered a complaint that the Respondent, between approximately February 2004 and October 2008, accepted and subsequently held scheme actuary appointments to four UK pension schemes without holding, or applying for, a scheme actuary certificate; such failure and conduct constituting:
a) A breach of Bye-Law 76 of the Bye- Laws of the Institute of Actuaries, and therefore misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 (a) of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute of Actuaries
b) A material breach of a requirement of a Practice Standard Guidance Note, namely paragraph 2.1 of version 5.0 and 6.0 of Guidance Note 29 and paragraph 2.2 of versions 7.0 and 7.1 of Guidance Note 29, because he retained such appointments, and accepted new appointments as a scheme actuary, without holding a current scheme actuary certificate and additionally, and in any event, inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, in breach of paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of versions 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.0 of the Professional Conduct Standards and paragraph 1.2 of version 3.0 of the Professional Conduct Standards and therefore Misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 (b) of the Disciplinary Scheme for the Institute of Actuaries as constituting conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence, or professional judgment which other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member.

The Panel determined that the case report disclosed a prima facie case of Misconduct in respect of the allegations made against the Respondent in accordance with rule 4.2 (b) (i) of the Institute’s Disciplinary Scheme and that the Respondent should be invited to accept that there had been Misconduct and to accept the following sanctions, namely:
>> A reprimand
>> A fine of £5000
>> A requirement to attend a professionalism course within 12 months.

The Panel’s reasons were as follows:
1. The alleged breach, which the case report discloses a prima facie case of, is a serious breach of a Practice Guidance Note and a Bye-Law of the Institute of Actuaries and is therefore capable of amounting to Misconduct in accordance with the Disciplinary Scheme.
2. The obtaining of a Practising Certificate is important in ensuring that only those that are sufficiently professionally competent and experienced are able to undertake the role of a scheme actuary.
3. It is therefore not merely an administrative requirement that scheme actuaries hold current Practising Certificates but enables the Profession to exercise its regulatory function and protect the public, and particularly pension schemes and their members.
4. The Panel carefully considered the case report and appendices and gave serious consideration to whether this matter was sufficiently serious to refer to a Disciplinary Tribunal Panel. It was determined, however, that in all the circumstances of the case this was not necessary, as the breadth of sanctions available to the Panel were sufficient to discharge the case.